U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 12-01-2018, 01:19 AM
 
Location: the Permian Basin
4,116 posts, read 2,874,461 times
Reputation: 5716

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
That's your opinion, it's apparently not something that the Supreme Court agrees with.
Even a cursory glance at the Court's rulings in cases like Dred Scott v Sandford and Plessy v Ferguson show that the Court sometimes makes rulings that are just plain wrong.




Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
And again, stop equating civil rights with I wanna do drugs. Civil rights issues were about wanting to be treated the same as everyone else in the same aspects of life.
Exactly.

 
Old 12-01-2018, 03:00 AM
 
547 posts, read 523,168 times
Reputation: 1079
Just doing their jobs is no excuse when their job is to violate a fundamental human right of being able to put into your own body and do to your own body as you see fit. There is no honor or goodness in people blindly following orders because others say so. Cops could say they are going to stop and deter rape, murder, theft, vandalism but refuse to violate people’s rights to their own body whether it is voluntarily and consensually deciding not to wear a seat belt, doing “drugs” or eating fatty food. Your body your choice. The op used a poor example in talking about cops removing people from restaurants 50 years ago. If a business owner doesn’t want to serve anyone for whatever reason he shouldn’t have to. No one should be forced to do anything by the government. If you are a Christian and don’t want to bake a cake for a gay marriage that is your fundamental human right. If you are black and only want to hire blacks that is your right (that’s how it is now but if whites want to do the same they are sued: double standard and anti white racism).


All this is why jury nullification is an important avenue we all should pursue. You can vote down other people’s bad laws by voting not guilty on a jury. Democracy is just mob rule; terrorism of the masses on the minority. There is no honor in it.
 
Old 12-01-2018, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Phoenix AZ
5,926 posts, read 10,570,757 times
Reputation: 9240
Quote:
Originally Posted by john620 View Post
Just doing their jobs is no excuse when their job is to violate a fundamental human right of being able to put into your own body and do to your own body as you see fit. There is no honor or goodness in people blindly following orders because others say so. Cops could say they are going to stop and deter rape, murder, theft, vandalism but refuse to violate people’s rights to their own body whether it is voluntarily and consensually deciding not to wear a seat belt, doing “drugs” or eating fatty food. Your body your choice. The op used a poor example in talking about cops removing people from restaurants 50 years ago. If a business owner doesn’t want to serve anyone for whatever reason he shouldn’t have to. No one should be forced to do anything by the government. If you are a Christian and don’t want to bake a cake for a gay marriage that is your fundamental human right. If you are black and only want to hire blacks that is your right (that’s how it is now but if whites want to do the same they are sued: double standard and anti white racism).


All this is why jury nullification is an important avenue we all should pursue. You can vote down other people’s bad laws by voting not guilty on a jury. Democracy is just mob rule; terrorism of the masses on the minority. There is no honor in it.

Jury nullification is certainly one answer, however our current justice system is tweaked heavily in favor of putting old/wealthy conformist-types on juries to sit in judgment of young/poor defendants. The "get off my lawn" crowd is effectively getting a legal opportunity to punish "these kids".

We don't have juries composed of "peers", we have juries composed of people who are retired or who have solid white-collar jobs.
 
Old 12-01-2018, 10:08 AM
 
1,207 posts, read 556,541 times
Reputation: 1875
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
Drug laws are unconstitutional, this is different from say, sex crimes, or traffic crimes.
That's an opinion. You and others have argued that since illicit drug sales are made person to person in a single state, the Commerce clause doesn't apply. That's weak thinking, given the amount of drugs that come to the US from other countries. Some marijuana is grown here, but the majority, from the statistics I've seen, comes from elsewhere. All heroin and cocaine comes from other countries. Meth may be made and sold locally, but the ingredients likely travel in interstate commerce. That makes regulation of all of those substances subject to Federal law. I would agree that marijuana that is grown and sold locally shouldn' tbe subject to Federal control, but that's hard to prove.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
Drug laws will only change if many people practice civil disobedience. Recreational pot only became legal after a couple generations of illicit users showed the law was worse than the drug.

Many drugs could be regulated. Most of the opioid overdoses are due to lack of standardized, pure doses. Add a little fentanyl to the heroin to give it a kick, and it's lights out for the poor user, one more fatality in the War on Drugs. Opium derivatives like morphine or heroin have no adverse health effects other than dependence. Methadone is considered more virtuous just because it lacks the beneficial effects. Users should be able to get the drug of their choice at a local dispensary. The drug laws kill people.

The really destructive drugs, like amphetamines and alcohol, are in a separate class. I'm conflicted about whether they should be legal and freely available, or restricted.
The CDC says 40% of opioid deaths are from prescription drugs. Civil disobedience is fine, in theory, but abusing hard drugs is civil disobedience that causes many deaths, and has real effects on the rest of society, so regulation is reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX View Post
The Constitution does not explicitly grant authority to the federal government to regulate the production, distribution, possession, or consumption of drugs, thus the 10th Amendment makes it a state issue.
I disagree. Drugs that have travelled in interstate commerce, which is the majority of them, are subject to Federal laws.
 
Old 12-01-2018, 10:26 AM
 
8,412 posts, read 4,599,538 times
Reputation: 8956
the problem would not be the police no matter what the law is but who made the law. like one says, the police was just doing their job. So your believes are two fold with the police being judge, jury, and executor. I can see that at time too. The law of the drugs who be , who wrote the law instead of why is it not enforceable.

I believe if the law on the books, its should be a legal enforceable law. so yes is someone smoking a single joint then yes police should enforce the law
 
Old 12-01-2018, 11:31 AM
 
7,054 posts, read 1,711,949 times
Reputation: 5027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX View Post
Moderator cut: off topic


If you want the laws changed in your jurisdiction (which has already been happening in many places), write/call your elected representatives, start a petition drive, stage a protest, etc. - but don't hassle the cops. Cops didn't write the laws and many cops don't agree with the possession laws, but they have to enforce the laws that are on the books. They don't deserve to be on the receiving end of protest actions, and you don't want to catch a case for obstruction of justice or interfering with the duties of an officer, and you certainly don't want to be charged as an accessory to possession/distribution/manufacture of a controlled substance.



Wrong. Drug laws are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes. Black people couldn't change the fact that they were black, it was an immutable characteristic. By contrast, drug use is a voluntary behavior, one than can be abstained from or concealed.

mod note - above snippet and below snippet have related messages. Above snippet is inappropriate for great debates. That bolded “wrong” and the all caps are not ok here. Please everyone - stay respectful, calm, and not snarky. Below snippet is right on target in terms of style and on topic content - regardless of whether others agree or disagree with that content.

Using your post as an example for others to learn from - and my sense is you can handle that whereas others might not.

If anyone has comments about my mod notes, do not post them in this thread. Instead, DM me. Stay on topic of the OP in this thread.



Look, I'm all for the repeal of certain drug laws, but let's be intellectually honest when discussing the issue. Trying to compare drug offenders to innocent black civilians from the pre-civil rights era is a really bad excuse for not proffering a better argument on the merits.
Well, in regards to some modern drug laws, law enforcement DOES have a part in making the laws, a good example is the DEA with opioid prescriptions, that was all the DEAs doing.


How thats not a major conflict of interest, is beyond me!
 
Old 12-01-2018, 11:35 AM
 
7,054 posts, read 1,711,949 times
Reputation: 5027
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
That's an opinion. You and others have argued that since illicit drug sales are made person to person in a single state, the Commerce clause doesn't apply. That's weak thinking, given the amount of drugs that come to the US from other countries. Some marijuana is grown here, but the majority, from the statistics I've seen, comes from elsewhere. All heroin and cocaine comes from other countries. Meth may be made and sold locally, but the ingredients likely travel in interstate commerce. That makes regulation of all of those substances subject to Federal law. I would agree that marijuana that is grown and sold locally shouldn' tbe subject to Federal control, but that's hard to prove.



The CDC says 40% of opioid deaths are from prescription drugs. Civil disobedience is fine, in theory, but abusing hard drugs is civil disobedience that causes many deaths, and has real effects on the rest of society, so regulation is reasonable.


Even if someone grew their own poppies, I would bet law enforcement would arrest them just as fast as the guys who had dope from out of state!



I disagree. Drugs that have travelled in interstate commerce, which is the majority of them, are subject to Federal laws.
I dont believe that, as its nearly impossible to get any doctor to even write scripts for opioids nowadays. Pharmacies are VERY strict about giving them out too.
 
Old 12-01-2018, 12:00 PM
 
4,181 posts, read 1,714,780 times
Reputation: 13266
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
This topic has me really outraged lately, just today, I saw a young man in Boone County, Indiana who was arrested for being what police described as a mid level marijuana dealer, apparently the police had been investigating him for the past year and finally made the arrest yesterday.


Another poster on another drug related thread here on CD, mentioned that "police are only doing their jobs, enforcing laws"...but just a few decades ago, police in the south were also 'just doing their jobs, enforcing the laws' in relation to where black people could go, eat, sit down, etc....more recently, police were again, just doing their jobs, enforcing laws in relation to sodomy/ gay laws.


I think this is a perfect fit for the Great debates board.


Its time more people disobey/ refuse to comply with drug laws, Ive said this before in other threads and usually many people will say things like "yeah and watch how fast you end up in jail"...but they dont stop to think, people fighting for civil rights went thru the same thing, MANY people were arrested numerous times in those days...but eventually, they were honored and recognized for doing these things.


Rosa Parks was a lady who REFUSED to obey the law about where she could sit down, police considered her a common criminal back then... Not the case today though!


I think we need to start holding police responsible for 'just doing their jobs' in relation to drug crimes.


We can all start doing our part, by NOT calling police if we see drug activity/ dealing/ using, etc. calling police on drug activity is pretty similar to those people in the south, that would call police if they saw black people doing something they were not supposed to be doing or being somewhere they shouldnt.


Another poster suggested juries to stop handing down guilty verdicts in drug cases, this is a good start too.


Can anyone else think of some good ideas how we can refuse to comply or disobey?

mod note - the OP advocates for citizens to disobey current drug laws. Agree or disagree and provide supporting evidence for your assertions.

I think there is a wide chasm between Rosa Parks defying the law in order to enjoy equal treatment on a transit bus and somebody defying the law so they may fire up a doober. One has to do with individual human dignity and equality while the other has to do with individual desires. If you can't tell the difference between the two, I don't know what to tell you.

Personally, I think drugs should be legal. But there's a mechanism for doing so. Meanwhile, the nitwit in Indiana who was busted for selling pot deserves to get arrested and prosecuted.
 
Old 12-01-2018, 12:17 PM
 
7,054 posts, read 1,711,949 times
Reputation: 5027
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
I think there is a wide chasm between Rosa Parks defying the law in order to enjoy equal treatment on a transit bus and somebody defying the law so they may fire up a doober. One has to do with individual human dignity and equality while the other has to do with individual desires. If you can't tell the difference between the two, I don't know what to tell you.

Personally, I think drugs should be legal. But there's a mechanism for doing so. Meanwhile, the nitwit in Indiana who was busted for selling pot deserves to get arrested and prosecuted.
Yes, I realize how the 2 are different, I just used civil rights as an example that, sometimes its the best thing to do is to disobey or refuse to comply.


What if all the people fighting for civil rights had said they were not going to cause problems for police or society, they would obey all the laws and stick to trying to get the laws changed the the 'right way', thhru petitions, courts, etc.? Would civil rights have passed if they did it this way? I doubt it very much.


This thread is not about gaining the right to get legally high anyway, its about making things safer, as long as drug laws are in place, the drug cartels will run the trade, and people will continue to overdose and die, until its regulated it will be like this, so if you support drug laws, just know that you share the same opinion as the drug dealers and drug cartels, they rely on these laws to profit.
 
Old 12-01-2018, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
11,243 posts, read 11,650,784 times
Reputation: 17520
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20 View Post
The CDC says 40% of opioid deaths are from prescription drugs. Civil disobedience is fine, in theory, but abusing hard drugs is civil disobedience that causes many deaths, and has real effects on the rest of society, so regulation is reasonable.
It's likely a bunch of those prescription deaths are suicides. Certainly most firearm deaths are suicides. Pills are painless and a lot neater. People can just haul off the corpse, and don't have to clean up the blood and brain spatter.

Suicide is decried as a terrible problem, but it's also one of the few human rights that no government has ever succeeded in erasing. Your final exit is your choice.

Now that the supply of prescription drugs is getting tighter, the death toll is switching back to street drugs, where death can easily be accidental. Amphetamine and cocaine overdoses are probably just people running off a cliff, but opioid deaths likely include a large intentional suicide contingent. About 2/3 of firearm deaths are suicides, and if the same percentage holds true, about 32,000 of the 49,000 opioid deaths are people taking the easy way out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top